Allahabad High Court
Brahma Prakash Singh vs Rahul Prakash Special Judge Cbi West … on 17 June, 2025
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35669 Reserved on:- 26.05.2025 Delivered on:- 17.06.2025 Court No. - 11 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4043 of 2024 Applicant :- Brahma Prakash Singh Opposite Party :- Rahul Prakash Special Judge Cbi West District Court Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Vikram Singh,Snajay Tripathi Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Raj Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The present application has been filed with the prayer that the opposite party, who is the presiding officer, failed to deal the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in different cases at the time of deciding the applications for recall of witnesses as well as discharge from the case, therefore, opposite party should be summoned and punished for committing contempt accordingly.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated in a fabricated trap case, thereafter, on the basis of arrest/recovery memo, Case No.4 of 2012 arsing out of Case Crime No.64 of 2012 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B, I.P.C. and Section 7 of P.C. Act was lodged against him. Thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Lucknow in the aforesaid case without proper appreciation of evidence and the applicant was wrongly sentenced. He further submitted that against the aforesaid sentence, an appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.203 of 2015 (Brahma Prakash Singh @ B.P. Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) was preferred by the applicant before this Court. The aforesaid appeal has already been admitted and the applicant has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.05.2015.
It is further submitted that on the basis of alleged involvement of the applicant in the aforesaid case, Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR and conducted the inquiry in the most mechanical manner, and thereafter, Complaint Case No.30/2018 (ED Vs. Brahm Prakash Singh) dated 23.01.2018 under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was filed, in which, discharge application was moved by the applicant on the strength of several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court but the said application was rejected in the most casual manner without dealing the judgement of this Court as well as of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the charges were framed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Lucknow in the said case and trial was proceeded by recording the statements of the witnesses. The applicant also moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of the witnesses, but the same was also rejected on 30.09.2024 without appreciating the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 2587 and submitted that in the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India is binding on all the courts and tribunals in India and no court, tribunal or party would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any contrary view.
Learned counsel for the applicant further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Mittal Vs. Parvati V. Sundaram. reported in AIR OnLine 2019 SC 2646 and submitted that if general directions have been given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court then same are having binding effect and in case directions are being violated, the contempt proceeding should be initiated. Similarly, he also relied on another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in the case of Mary Pushpam Vs. Telvi Curusumary and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.9941 of 2016, and submitted that once the Presiding Officer failed to consider the principles laid down by the Honb’le Supreme Court and ignored the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this is contemptuous. Hence, he should be summoned and punished, in accordance with law.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Managing Director in LACFAD and he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court to undergo ten years imprisonment for committing offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. and Section 7 of P.C. Act by means of judgment and order dated 12.02.2015 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Lucknow in Case No.4/2012, against which the applicant has filed Criminal Appeal No.203 of 2015 (supra) before this Court. The aforesaid appeal was admitted and the applicant was enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.05.2015.
5. On the basis of predicate offence, the ECIR was registered by Enforcement Directorate and the inquiry was conducted, and thereafter, the Complaint Case No.30/2018 (supra) was filed against the applicant and the charges were framed by the trial Court and the witnesses were also examined. It is further conceded by the learned counsel for the applicant that the opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses was also given but that was not satisfactory, then he filed application u/s 311 Cr.P.C., which was rejected on 17.09.2024 by the trial Court.
6. On 23.07.2024, the applicant filed second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that P.W.-5 i.e. Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava and Shri H.K.Lal, I.P.S. (erstwhile Additional Director, Lucknow, Zone and present Joint Director/Assistant Director), whoever is having the obligation to investigate in the LACFAD scam case and whoever has never been examined before the trial court wherein the applicant is accused, should be directed to appear to clarify the LACFAD scam as well as the money laundering case.
7. The prayer clause of the aforesaid application is itself ambiguous, which is annexed at Page 58. Relevant part of the prayer made in the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:
“Wherefore there is humble request that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to call the prosecution witness no.5 Mr. Rakesh Srivastava, Mr.. H.K. Lal. I.P.S and erstwhile ditional Director Lucknow, Zone and present Joint Director or Assistant Director whoever having the obligation to investigate in LACFED scam case and who were never examined before this Hon’ble court wherein the applicant is accused to appear before this Hon’ble Court to clarify and argue in LACFAD scam as well as in aforesaid money laundering case in the interest of justice.”
8. It is also evident that the aforesaid second application was rejected on 23.09.2024 with the observation that no specific question is mentioned in the application which is to be asked from a specific witness. As in the aforesaid order, it is also observed by the trial court that P.W.-5 i.e. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, was cross-examined exhaustively, therefore, the application was rejected and the date- 30.09.2024 was fixed for defence evidence/argument.
9. It is further conceded by learned counsel for the applicant that the orders passed by the trial court on different stages have already been challenged before this Court either in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction. It is evident from the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by trial court by which the second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant was rejected, and the trial court has considered the judgments relied upon by the applicant and once the statutory remedy is available for challenging the order passed by the trial court then no contempt can be made out against the opposite party.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant also failed to show specific direction which was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for deciding the application in a specific manner. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no contempt is made out against the opposite party and this is a futile exercise, only with the intention to linger on the trial proceeding which is pending since 2015, therefore, the present contempt application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the present contempt application is hereby dismissed.
12. The trial of the case is pending since 2015. Therefore, trial court is directed to conclude trial, expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
Order Date :- June 17, 2025
V. Sinha